Reality vs Perception...

[Steven Kersting]

Kind of a tie on to Arthur's Post..

What is reality other than your perception of it?
What makes a "good image" other than conveying the "perception" of the scene you experienced being there? As the saying goes, there are three "truths" your's, mine, and reality.

Many don't seem to understand the complexities of the human mind (nor do I purport to fully)

Looks across the room and focus on something...in your field of view is something around 180* but what "exists", what is getting "attention", is around 10-20*.

Go into a room illuminated by tungsten lights, fluorescent lights, halide lights, and they all seem as if illuminated by "white light", not yellow, blue, green... But the camera records them all differently.

Look at a field of snow and it appears white when it is really blue, look at a swan at sunset and it is still white when in reality it is yellow/orange.....

My point is, the purpose of photography is to "convey reality", not "capture reality"....
Capturing reality is why so many "beautiful sunsets" fail...they don't convey the "reality" of the experience.

A picture of a loved one with a pole sticking out of their head, does not convey the reality since the pole was ignored when you were seeing them...remove it (or better yet, recognize it beforehand)

A picture of a bird with another bird's head up it's ***, remove it....Stick detracting, not "recognized" at the time..remove it...

In reality, it's kind of sad.....There are so many "scenes" that excite others that I don't even bother with because I have learned to see much as the camera does.

But to capture and covey on camera the "experience" of being there is what it's all about...telling a story and conveying "the feeling", conveying the perception of the reality, and not the "cold hard truth" as arbitrarily captured by a camera.

My point is, the goal is to convey the idea, the feeling, the emotion, the scene as perceived, not the reality.....This is where the "art" is.

There are "rules" to help and to be broken...it doesn't matter in the end as long as the goal is achieved.

(sometimes you get lucky and they are the same)

p.s. if this came off as a rant I apologize.....

[Desmond Chan]

What is reality other than your perception of it?

OK.

Errr...you sure you exist? :t3


What makes a "good image" other than conveying the "perception" of the scene you experienced being there? As some artistic type say.



Go into a room illuminated by tungsten lights, fluorescent lights, halide lights, and they all seem as if illuminated by "white light", not yellow, blue, green... Actually, no. We do see it's yellowish light, redish, bluish or greenish lights that is illuminating the room. That's why a white-balanced photo of that room may not be really correct as in it doesn't reflect what the eyes see. If there happens to be a white paper sitting on a table in a room lit by a tungsten light bulb, we still know that it's a while paper even though it does not appear white any more (as it reflects the light that is shined on it) because we have learned that that is a white paper. And we do see the world appears yellowish during sunset, or bluish at dusk



My point is, the purpose of photography is to "convey reality", I thought you said "conveying perception" somewhere up there? :S3:


A picture of a loved one with a pole sticking out of their head, does not convey the reality since the pole was ignored when you were seeing them...remove it (or better yet, recognize it beforehand) Yeah, but then some folks would say: "That's digital art, not photograph!" :5



But to capture and covey on camera the "experience" of being there is what it's all about...I have to disagree. It may be true for fine art photographers. But there're other kinds of photography and photographers, too. They really have no intention of changing anything that got recorded on films or now the sensor (Cartier-Bresson should be one of them I'd say) although some may not want to call their photos, good, great or perfect. Perhaps many of you see yourself as artist.But a camera is still a recording equipment to begin with. No? :S3:

[Steven Kersting]

Actually, no. We do see it's yellowish light, redish, bluish or greenish lights that is illuminating the room. That's why a white-balanced photo of that room may not be really correct as in it doesn't reflect what the eyes see.
For 90+% of people the mind automatically changes it (unless it's very drastic)....But we can learn to see the color of light.


I thought you said "conveying perception" somewhere up there? :S3: I should have said "your reality"


Yeah, but then some folks would say: "That's digital art, not photograph!" :5 I agree.

[QUOTE=Desmond Chan;648693I have to disagree. It may be true for fine art photographers. But there're other kinds of photography and photographers, too. They really have no intention of changing anything that got recorded on films or now the sensor (Cartier-Bresson should be one of them I'd say) although some may not want to call their photos, good, great or perfect. Perhaps many of you see yourself as artist.But a camera is still a recording equipment to begin with. No? :S3:[/QUOTE]
The only form which *I* believe this is necessarily true is journalism with "street photography" being a loose subset.

IMO, you have to learn to "see" like the camera does. You have to learn to see the color of light etc. You also have to learn to "see" what it is that is making you want to take a picture and then "see" everything else that the camera will capture and take away from your goal.

For me, this takes away some from everyday scenes because I can't usually turn it off... I think that might be one reason bird photography is attractive for me. The "what" and the "why" are generally very clear and it's just a matter of conveying the beauty/ interest with minimal distractions

But like everything else, this is only my 2c. We don't need to agree.

[Desmond Chan]

For 90+% of people the mind automatically changes it (unless it's very drastic)....But we can learn to see the color of light.

Well, Steven, I have to disagree. It's the other way round, I'd say. We do see the color of the light that is illuminating the room. I'd say that's why we know, without looking at any photograph, that the world appears to be yellowish around sunset. This, I believe, every one, i.e, photographer or not, can see with their own eyes. Have you been to a dark room, Steven?

I can agree though it's better for us to learn to see like a camera does.

[Roger Clark]

IMO, you have to learn to "see" like the camera does. You have to learn to see the color of light etc. You also have to learn to "see" what it is that is making you want to take a picture and then "see" everything else that the camera will capture and take away from your goal.


Steven,

I'll counter that the camera does not "see." It only records. The photographer sees and points the camera to record what they see.

So it is not at all learning what the camera "sees" or records. It is about understanding light and its interaction with a scene, and the subjects in the scene. This is true regardless of the medium, e.g. photography or painting. As far as the camera goes, what the photographer needs to understand about the camera is can the camera with a particular set of settings (ISO, f/satop, shutter speed, sensor dynamic range) record what the photographer sees and wants to record.

And I agree with Desmond. We do perceive relative color (e.g. sunsets being redder; twilight on a clear evening being bluer, incandescent lights yellow). Just we (our eyes+brain) do not see absolute levels well, but relative contrasts. That mutes an effect when everything is skewed to one color (e.g. indoor incandescent lighting). But we still perceive the bias in the color.

Roger

[Charles Glatzer]

Steve,

Reality... that which exists. The Perception you speak of is an interpretation.
Removing objects is without doubt an interpretation of reality.

Unless we live in the Matrix :w3

Chas

[Charles Glatzer]

Steve,

Real... that which exists.
Removing objects is an interpretation or more succinctly an alteration of reality.

Unless we live in the Matrix :w3

Chas

[paul leverington]

Steve a spot on observation. The full realization of which will transform anyone's shooting strategies. Looking up the words perception and interpretation they seem to both fit here but interpretation as Charlie points out might be a better one to use, No matter --I know what you mean.

Whether the camera see's or records or whatever is being trivial and nitpicky about definitions and semantics. Your point was received just fine here. And Desmond's counter points may have some truth to them in certain ways of looking at this, but to me they all seem without exception to all be arguments for arguments sake. Rather diversions and deflections unyielding to recognize your points for whatever personal reasons. That's alright --fine and dandy even--but I wanted to let you know that I felt your original post embraced in the most fundamental ways the most important aspect of picking up a camera in the first place. To capture what the "Minds Eye" see's. Especially since such comments detract and may kill even someone's good thought. Achieving a visual representation of that experience would warrant a whole lot more discussion than it has here so far--which leaves me a bit puzzled actually.

Paul